Here's an example of why I think the UCLAProfs.com site is often shallow and unpersuasive, though as I note below I think some of the "those McCarthyites" criticisms of it are unpersuasive, too. From the front page of the site:
There's Something About Petitions
Given the vast number of radical petitions UCLA professors have signed in recent years, much of our university's faculty apparently follows a variation of Descartes' famous statement, Cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am): Signo, ergo sum, (I sign, therefore I am).
Preliminary UCLAProfs.com research has uncovered nearly 500 faculty signatures on petitions, open letters and public statements which take a wide variety of radical positions: anti-Israel, anti-Bush, anti-war. The list also demonstrates that a large number of UCLA professors are ardently in favor of affirmative action, and just as ardently opposed to conservative legal nominees, even opposing fellow alumni like Justice Janice Rogers Brown.
Various faculty profiles that I saw on the site also stress those petitions.
Consider:
1. The irrelevant data: Nearly 500 signatures (not 500 separate faculty members, but 500 signatures) on various petitions. And this matters because . . .?
2. More irrelevant data: "A large number of UCLA professors are ardently in favor of affirmative action, and just as ardently opposed to conservative legal nominees." So? In a faculty of thousands, of course there'd be a large number of UCLA professors ardently in favor of affirmative action. They're entitled to hold such views; why is it that important that they do hold such views? It doesn't show that the faculty is disproportionately left-wing. (It may well be, and certainly is in many departments, but we know that from other sources. That "a large number of UCLA professors" supports affirmative action is not evidence of that, given what a small fraction of UCLA professors must be in their petition signatories dataset.)
3. The putdown that's really a compliment: "... even opposing fellow alumni like Justice Janice Rogers Brown." Jeez, school spirit is all well and good, but it's hardly a sign of poor character that some people don't let their public policy judgment be swayed by school loyalty.
4. The exaggerated rhetoric: "[R]adical positions: anti-Israel, anti-Bush, anti-war" -- since when was being anti-Bush, a view that roughly half (if not more) of the population takes a "radical position"? Likewise as to opposition to the war or opposition to Israel. Now there are surely radical versions of those positions, and doubtless some of my colleagues hold them. But simply labeling "anti-Israel, anti-Bush, anti-war" as "radical positions," with no explanation of what's radical about them, is a self-caricature of conservatism.
As I've said before, it's perfectly legitimate to criticize professors. People even have the First Amendment right to do so unfairly, shallowly, and exaggeratedly. But such weakly reasoned criticism is hardly laudable -- and, I think, it usually (and especially in this instance) is likely to be counterproductive.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Hot News Just In!
- Criticisms of UCLA Professors:
To me, these guys sufficiently balanced out the left-wing wackos in the humanities.
Flynn
They are paying students to give them notes and tape recordings of lectures.
You can find the details here.
However...
Section 102.23(a) of the UCLA Student Conduct code PROHIBITS the sale of notes or recordings:
Now, in their disclaimer they say "The Bruin Alumni Association will not purchase any lecture recordings that were obtained without consent of the recorded professor." (emphasis mine).
However, the Student Code applies to recordings AND written lecture notes and puts a double permission burden; authorization by the University in advance and explicitly permission by the course instructor in writing.
The Bruin Alumni Association disclaimer only mentions one permission (the instructor/professor) and does not specify that it be in writing as the Student Code requires.
I would hate to see some students get hammered under the Student Code because of this.
I attended UCLA many years ago. I was enrolled in the Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning, which long ago was abolished and divided up between other departments. The school was definitely a magnet for left-wing academics and students. Both the faculty and the student body were split between standard left-of-center Democrats and far-lefties. There were no right-wingers in sight, which is understandable in an urban planning context since a principled ideological right-winger probably doesn't believe in urban planning at all.
To me though, the key issue is not the ideological predisposition of the professor, but rather the willingness of the professor to engage in open dialogue and discussion with students who do not agree with that ideology, and the ability of the professor to resist academically punishing such dissenting students.
There were of course rumors at UCLA that certain professors would punish students for dissent. I had one friend at the time in the Urban Planning PhD program who claimed he was booted out of it for not being sufficiently left-wing. But I have no independent verification of his claim, and other circumstances lead me to question the truth of the matter.
The other point to make is that while UCLA was known at the time for its radical urban planning program, other schools had quite different ideological and academic approaches. It wasn't as if the prospective urban planning student didn't have a wide choice of programs and perspectives, both nationwide and in Southern California, to choose from.
My suspicions are that the Bruin Alumni Association are interested not in diverse intellectual viewpoint, but in promoting a sterile right-wing mirror image of what they perceive to be academia today.
But then I looked at the Zasloff profile. Among his other sins, he's opposed to Bush's judicial nominees, once worked for the Democratic California Assembly speaker, has contributed to Democratic candidates, and thinks Clinton's Foreign Policy is better than Bush's.
Give me a break. My suspicions that the Bruin Alumni Assocation wants to create a right-wing academic desert were just fortified.
There is nothing wrong with forcing a student to read Marx. He is studied in just about every university in the country. Even if you hate him or disagree with him, Marx is probably one of the most important thinkers of our time in economics and the like. Indeed, Marxist economic theory is even relevant to modern derivatives pricing. (Not that you now or care about that.) Now, of course, if the course was about say, microeconomics, and there was only Marxist theory taught then you don’t have a point. But this didn’t happen.
You say that professors should be forced out for “opposing the Iraq war.” Are you for real? Are you saying that if a professor takes a side in what is probably the most talked-about political issue in the past 5 years he should lose his job?
You also seem to indicate that a professor should be “forced out” for “belittling creation science.” Why? Is there something wrong with a professor belittling anything, especially if its fundamental assumptions are precisely the opposite of what is being taught in the class. If anything, a science professor should be disciplined for spending too much time acknowledging “creation science.”
What is wrong with “mocking” supply-side economics? Heck, what is “supply-side” economics, anyway. I think you are talking more about political policy then economic theory. Whatever the case, so long as the professor does not discipline a student for taking a well-supported contrary position (and rebutting the opposing arguments) there is no problem.
You also provide no support for the statement that “conservatives outnumber liberals” or what a definition of these terms entails. (I wonder where I fit it. I don’t vote. I don’t belong to a political party. I have contributed to candidates of both parties, and I am related to congresspeople of both parties. I like NASCAR and modern dance.)
How do you know if someone is really a conservative. I have to admit that I have gone to Federalist Society events, and even joined them, just to see a speaker. Does this mean that I can partake of your AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for people that claim to be “conservative.” (I think most of the people in the Federalist Society are just trolling for jobs, and are not “real” conservatives.)
Also, you have not shown how any of these professors committed a form of fraud at all. Indeed, you seem to conflate support for (or lack of support for) a war with fraud.
This is indeed strange.
If anyone has rage, it is you. But all you want is affirmative action for people you think are your friends who will turn universities into political rallies for your points of view.
Perhaps if these people could show the ideological bias of an act professor in class, you would have something. But you don't.
I am honestly not sure whether Smithy is being ironic or simply moronic. I had typed up a reply to him along the same lines followed by Roger above, and ultimately decided to not post it because I cannot figure out whether Smithy is for real. There is no question that lots of folks who really think like him exist, just spend about ten seconds on freerepublic to convince yourself of this sad fact. Having read Smithy's musings on this and the other related thread, I'd give about a sixty percent probability to the proposition that he truly is as dumb as he sounds.
But that is only the law faculty - as EV notes, they are often different.
.
The Age of Irony ended on 911? Hmm, I guess this means that on September 1, 2001, it was “irony time” in the USA. Things were ironic. Then, on September 12, 2001, there was no irony in the USA!
What is sort of strange is that someone like him bothers with a board with lawyers. Most lawyers don’t call themselves “liberal” or “conservative” (unless is part of a marketing plan). Instead, they express a view of the proper way that the state should be, and perhaps a proper means of interpreting texts. They tailor these views to fit various clients, and put the interests of their clients first. This is the real world.
Sure, I have to admit that once or half a dozen or so times I called myself a “conservative” and a six or so times, I called myself a “conservative” but it was only to get clients who wanted to hear that.
The other thing that is strange about Smithy and his kind is that he doesn’t even bother to articulate a politically-neutral view of any subject. So, for example, he figures that people are not getting their money’s worth if they go to school and don’t have the ideological biases reinforced.
Volokh's writers and commentariat are a group of liberal intellectuals? Aside from the authors (who are indeed intellectual), I'd say neither hold true,
(I got a train to catch.)